Circumcision (Page 7 of 8)

Hi Lyra,

2 quick notes:
- Remember when you were a kid, if someone told you how you *couldn't* have something, or you *couldn't* do something, that made you want it even more, right?  Now just extrapolate that to the societal level, and add in some reverse psychology and other twisted elements...
- I'd venture to guess that not all Jews are gay (!), but there is probably a very much higher incidence of that "cant-put-your-finger-on-it" mentioned in your above post -- especially when it comes to intimate relationships.  Then again, it's just a hypothesis / semi-edumacated guess from my part.

T-Ren, I see what you're saying, but I don't think your exception eliminates the rule.  I don't know for certain whether these claims about circumcision are true, but I just want to make a point about your post.

Example:  German Shepherds are prone to hip dysplasia.  Not EVERY German Shepherd will get it, but by virtue of them being that breed they are more likely than others to suffer from it.

Example:  Some people are allergic to peanuts.  Not EVERY person is allergic to peanuts, but that doesn't mean that peanuts are not a potential allergen.

See where I'm going with this?  If you haven't experienced negative effects from things, great, but that doesn't mean other people haven't.  We're all a stange cocktail of nature, nurture, and someting indefineable and ineffable.

On the other hand, your post is emphasizing the ability each person has to overrule circumstances, and I agree with that as well.  But I do believe we have enough obstacles to overcome in life without having a traumatic and unnecessary procedure cut at the very source of sexuality, and I can see how that would affect some males.

Visavis,

I basically hinted I hadn't followed this thread closely when I typed "wow this thread has grown". I don't have the opportunity to visit here as often as I once did.

Oceanchild asked where the practised started, Celephais answered, I added to that answer.

Someone brought up Circ. and homosexuality and I (obviously rather late) interjected a different point of view shared with me and added another component I thought may apply. Individually they may be weak components but together they may have a synergistic effect.

Not once did I negate a persons experience in what I typed. So what part is off topic that says I haven't been following this thread or it's linked content?

Look at it from a "Four agreements" way: As the authorizer (whether knowledgeable or ignorant) of this "event" happening or as a recipient of this "event" you have the right to accept the attachments that go with it or reject the attachments at the time it occurred or even later, with or without anyones permission.

By rights I should be a criminal or living in slums without the ability to have a loving nuturing relationship(if you believe "the studies): I'm circumsized, not breastfed. abused as a child verbally and physically, parents had poor money habits, Dad is an alcoholic and partakes of drugs occassionally, I was a latch key kid, tv was my babysitter... yada yada yada oh yeah and I completely forgot I was a C-section baby.

But I'm not(Don't let this think that I don't have issues - they just don't hold me down), I have a very loving relationship with my wife, I've never beat my kids or wife and bearly yelled.

I don't accept attachments readily.

Most people when they come across a person that has "dealt with" or overcame something they haven't it embitters them more and they tend to have a dislike for that person without even knowing them. Why? mainly because that could forgive the offender and move on and they couldn't/won't. OR they start brow beating themselves and negatively reinforce the low self esteem" why can't I move on, they can but I can't I am worthless etc".

Lono those are a genetic traits/ illnesses...last time I thought about it, cutting off foreskin does not alter DNA. I'm not so sure there is a genetic link for homosexuality, even though I think I heard on the news that they have found a genetic link. As Lyra point out studies can be skewed and aren't what they are cracked up to be. I agree it is very hard (near impossible) to overcome genetics, without the gentics it falls back on the person.

I think birthing is a lot more traumatic than circumcision. Think about how sensitive and painful your skin is when a blister pops...now imagine that all over your body. think about being in pitch black and then someone turns on incredibiliy bright lights and think about how it would feel like to go from a sauna to spring air all the while being squished and then someone starts rubbing and moving you as you have never been and the sounds go from base, rhythmic and muffled... to all over the octaves and crystal clear, unmuted.

I suppose that circ. can be a PART of multi-faceted issues, however it sounds blown out of proportion in this thread, just my take.

T-Ren,

I think you're reading too much into my brief comment.  I'll try to state myself more clearly and fully in this reply.

I'm not minimizing your opinion or the fact that you've successfully dealth with your issues including circ.  In fact, your attitude of empowerment is just that... empowering, and could be a benefit to many.  It is always inspiring to see someone take their fate in their own hands and overcome the odds, no matter what their setbacks were.  But like you said, if statistics had their way, you would be living a vastly different life.  That statement implies that you have in some way become the exception to the general rule, right?  Maybe the word 'rule' isn't accurate... 'trend', let's say.  That by no stretch has everyone been empowered to see that it is a fact that they can turn their life around and rid themselves of attachments and neg consequences, etc.  So it might not be not barbaric to you, as you have dealt with and risen above, but that doesn't mean that it isn't barbaric to the scores who have issues remaining, and who have not received and been convinced of such insight that yes they can turn their life around.

Secondly, let's hypothetically state that the issue is not cutting off the end of someone's penis, the issue is cutting off someone's... big toe.  That 80% of north americans have their big toe cut off, upon birth, and for no good reason.  I ask you, would that qualify as being barbaric?  If so, then what's the difference between a foreskin and a toe?  (Other than the fact that a foreskin has exponentially more pleasure/pain receptors.  And other than the fact that it is directly related to the powerful natural drive of sexuality, whereas a toe has no such direct relation to anything of the like.)  If not, then have a nice day. 

I cannot accept that circumcision is "not a big deal".  It is cruel and yes, barbaric, to needlessly inflict a great deal of pain (I've obviously understated this) on another.  At best, it's stupid.  At worst, it's horrifying.

They (doctors) sell it to biomedical companies who regenerate it to make skin for skin grafts. One foreskin contains enough genetic material to grow 250,000 square feet of skin. Which, by the way, sells for about $3000 per square foot.

I feel like sueing for $750,000,000, anyone else????